Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atul Kumar (3rd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Kumar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero improvement over the material that was deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atul Kumar (2nd nomination). The article was recreated so many times in failing form that the title had to be salted. DMacks (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep The original submission may have not been much better, but I rewrote it completely. I removed the 90% of the article which was unclear or over-extended or puffery. Clear notability: highest citations, 190, 95, in two of the major journals in the field, . This kind of citation record is notable in any subject. I unsalted the title because I fixed the problem. That bad prior articles were written doesn't mean that the present article is equally bad. I do not agree with the principle that we punish the subject for having written a bad article about themselves In past years, I would routinely rewrite any low quality article on a notable academic, and in many other fields s also. I do much less of this now, because of the need to deal with the flood of promotionalism, but when there's a chance to easily fix something that's worth fixing, I still do it if it's quick enough. DGG ( talk ) 21:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find support for the number-of-citations claims (the only cited novel claim beyond those in the previous articles)...the ref is to Google Scholar for this person's name starting after hit #10 of the results. How does one determine which of the "about 14,600 hits" are ones that cite two specific papers? DMacks (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, Google Scholar can be less than helpful! (But you can click around a bit in papers to get a feel for which ones are his and what the field is like.) In Google Scholar search for "Atul Kumar Central Drug Research Institute", then in the papers that come up click on the links of the two of his students (S Sharma, RA Maurya) who have Google Scholar profiles. Those papers come up in citation order, so you can see the top ones. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He does have his own profile as "Dr Atul Kumar". I put that url in the Google Scholar reference in the article. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thanks to the Google Scholar reference. --TTTommy111 (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY (although actually the cleanups were a few minutes before the AfD was started) and WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kudos to DGG for doing the heavy lifting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.